EUPillar BGH, 14.10.2015 – XII ZB 150/15

Summary

The defendant had previously applied for a modification of his maintenance obligations. A judgment had been made by a German court. The fact that the German second instance court had stated that the defendant was obliged to bring an action before the courts of his domicile (Pennsylvania, USA) lead to the following explanations of the German Federal Supreme Court: The Court held that it was doubtful whether American courts in the present case would assume international jurisdiction. This could be doubted particularly in view of the fact that the American procedural law was governed by the principle of ‘continuing exclusive jurisdiction’. As the original title on the maintenance obligations was given by a German court, it was – according to the Court – possible that the American courts would consider the German courts as internationally competent and would therefore refuse to administer justice in this regard. In order to avoid a negative international conflict of jurisdiction, Art 7 Maintenance Regulation applied to the case. The Court stated that the rule was founded on the general principle that the venues established by the Regulation could not exhaustively cover any constellation. In order to ensure a sufficient access to justice, the rule was to be applied to cases where the access of the person seeking an amendment of his/her maintenance obligations was threatened by a negative international conflict of jurisdiction.